El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar el rendimiento de materia seca (MS), concentraciones de fibra detergente neutro y ácido (FDN y FDA), proteína cruda (PC) y digestibilidad in vitro de la MS (DIVMS) de las leguminosas forrajeras Stylosanthes guianensis (SG), Centrosema macrocarpum (CM), Pueraria phaseoloides (PP) y Arachis pintoi (AP). Durante 11 meses se realizaron seis cortes a intervalos de 56 días. La siembra de las especies se realizó en parcelas experimentales de 3 x 7 m bajo un diseño de bloques completos al azar con cuatro repeticiones. La acumulación de MS total fue mayor (P≤0.05) en SG y CM con 19,410 y 17,462 kg MS ha-1, respectivamente, en comparación a PP (14,704 kg)y AP (12,466 kg). La especie con menor cantidad (P≤0.05) de FDN y FDA fue AP con 60 y 35 %, respectivamente. Esta misma especie tuvo mayor digestibilidad (74 %) seguido de SG con 62 %, PP con 57 % y CM con 55 %. Las especies con mayor (P≤0.05) contenido de PC fueron AP y CM con 21 % seguido de SG con 19 % y PP con 17.8 %. Las especies SG y CM fueron las leguminosas con mayor producción de MS; mientras que AP fue la especie con mayor digestibilidad y proteína. No obstante, de acuerdo a su valor nutritivo y producción de MS, las cuatro leguminosas pueden ser utilizadas como fuente de proteína para rumiantes en dietas de bajo valor nutritivo.
Our objectives were to evaluate technical lignins for their antifungal properties against 3 molds and 1 yeast causing hay spoilage, and their ability to preserve ground high-moisture alfalfa hay nutritive value in vitro. In experiment 1, 8 technical lignins and propionic acid (PRP; positive control) were tested at a dose of 40 mg/mL. The experiment had a randomized complete block design (RCBD, 4 runs) and a factorial arrangement of 3 molds × 10 additives (ADV). The effects of the ADV on yeast were evaluated separately with a RCBD. Sodium lignosulfonate (NaL) and PRP were the only treatments with 100 ± 2.8% inhibition of fungi. In experiment 2, the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for selected lignins and PRP were determined. At pH 4, NaL had the lowest MIC across the molds (20-33.3 mg/mL) and magnesium lignosulfonate (MgL) for the yeast (26.7) among the lignins. However, PRP had MIC values that were several-fold lower across all fungi (1.25-3.33). In experiment 3, a RCBD (5 blocks) with a 3 (ADV; NaL, MgL, and PRP) × 4 (doses: 0, 0.5, 1, and 3% wt/wt fresh basis) factorial arrangement of treatments was used to evaluate the preservative effects of ADV in ground high-moisture alfalfa hay inoculated with a mixture of the fungi previously tested and incubated under aerobic conditions in vitro. After 15 d, relative to untreated hay (14.9), dry matter (DM) losses were lessened by doses as low as 1% for NaL (3.39) and 0.5% for PRP (0.81 ± 0.77%). The mold count was reduced in both NaL at 3% (3.92) and PRP as low as 0.5% (3.94) relative to untreated hay (7.76 ± 0.55 log cfu/fresh g). Consequently, sugars were best preserved by NaL at 3% (10.1) and PRP as low as 0.5% (10.5) versus untreated (7.99 ± 0.283% DM), while keeping neutral detergent fiber values lower in NaL (45.9) and PRP-treated (45.1) hays at the same doses, respectively, relative to untreated (49.7 ± 0.66% DM). Hay DM digestibility was increased by doses as low as 3% for NaL (67.5), 1% MgL (67.0), and 0.5% PRP (68.5) versus untreated hay (61.8 ± 0.77%). The lowest doses increasing neutral detergent fiber digestibility relative to untreated hay (23.3) were 0.5% for MgL and PRP (30.5 and 30.1, respectively) and 1% for NaL (30.7 ± 1.09% DM). Across technical lignins, NaL showed the most promise as a potential hay preservative. However, its effects were limited compared with PRP at equivalent doses. Despite not having an effect on preservation, MgL improved DM digestibility by stimulating neutral detergent fiber digestibility. This study warrants further development of NaL under field conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.